Pfls #2
 

Simple question, probably best if it's only answered by qualified pilots (only because students are really answering on behalf of their instructors), which is, how low do you routinely break-off your PFLs.

This is an unashamed spin-off from the existing PFLs thread and as before, honesty will allow us all to learn the most.

G

I rarely do a PFL in open country, but I will spring a 'pick a field' on my self every now and again, particularly when I know I'm being slack. If I'm feeling vunerable, I'll go the whole hog and constantly keep identifying and re-selecting new 'options'.

If I am in open country, I'll usually break off at about 500' for three reasons:
1) Don't want to annoy the neighbours, be they animal or farmer,
2) Don't want them to report me...
3) Still gives me height to make a Pan/Mayday call if the aeroplane lets me down at the last moment!

If I've screwed up, I might take it lower to check that I can get in somewhere else, but if it looks good, I'll break off.

However, I do carry out PFLs back at the airfield as often as possible, and then of course, it's all the way down to the bottom. During the summer months, that was every flight, as I would glide in towards sunset to keep the noise down!

Under 100' for me. Although I'll qualify that statement with two points;

1/. I haven't done much in years as I've been flying transport cat jets. When I was teaching/doing them regularly it was in PNG where we had a proper low level training area. Upper limit 1000'/lower limit don't hit nuffing:D
2/. Lately I have done a few in my A36 Bonanza to get current again and yesterday did one to touch down at my home field, YRED.

IMHO the banishing of proper Low Level training areas in Australia (and the UK by the sounds of it) over 20 years ago was a retrograde step.

In D904 near Port Moresby we could and did go below 50'..when we weren't chasing villagers or making them get out of their duggout canoes/Banana boats:D

Chuck.

It is a valid question to students, as I'm at the stage where I practice them solo (could be the topic of a discussion in its own right, I know). Anyway, I was never much good at PFL's until I'd done a couple solo and this really boosted my confidence. As to the height - always try to go below 500ft to make it a bit more realistic but not usually by much. It's surprising how different the target field looks from 300ft or so - which is good for the practice but bad for the nerves.

As a side point, how are you to be sure you're not within 500ft of person or animal until you're well below that height? A couple of times on climbout from 200ft practices (with instructor) we've flown over people we hadn't previously seen (picknicking in the corner of a field and hiking behind a hedge) - makes me wonder if it's actually possible to stay 500ft from anything with any level of certainty.

When teaching PFLs I have found it one of the more difficult exercises for a student to master. It doese require skill, judgement and regular practice to pull off a successful landing into a field in the event of an engine failure.

The last 500ft are demanding and stressful for the student and it is only by allowing him/her to descend below 500ft can you build up their skill.judgement and confidence.

In my view if the CAA amend Rule 5 to include the 500ft heght limitation there should be an exemption for engine failure training.

Does everyone know the details about the proposed changes to Rule 5? Was it mentioned in this thread, and did I miss it? If so, I apologise for repeating it. Briefly, it's been suggested that we change from "500 ft from any person, vessel etc etc" to "500 agl", to be more in keeping with ICAO and the rest of Europe. There's a long "sticky" thread about it on Rotorheads if you want more detail (and probably a more accurate description). It's getting a lot of criticsim there because it would prevent many things that are basically normal helicopter operations - confined area practice, mountain flying, etc. As said here, it would also prevent engine off training and practice. The CAA welcome comments on this; I've been talking to some of them too; this is not a foregone conclusion at all; it's just being looked at. We need to let our views be known. The website to comment on is also on the Rotorheads thread; I can't remember it offhand. But it really is worth each of us doing something about this.

I suppose I'm lucky that I live in big-fields-and-rural-idyll Essex. ;-)

I try to do a session of three or four PFLs every three months or so, and prefer to get down to something like 250 feet, just to be sure that I could get into my chosen field.

Important, I think, is NOT to use the same field for the next one (less practice, and if there is a NIMBY there, more likely to give rise to GBH of the ear).

I must have done about 30 of them in Florida earlier this year, many of those all the way to the ground (round and round at Immokalee and Marco Island).

With the examiner for the unrestricted FAA PPL "If you hit that alligator, I'll fail you". So me, being cheeky, asked "Is it OK to scare him?" "Just don't scare ME".

I worry about the thought process that would ban meaningful PFLs - doing them at an airfield removes a chunk of the exercise (picking your field), and the opportunity to screw up by changing your field on the way down. I far prefer to do them in open country.

Whirly, in fairness to the CAA, I think they are saying that they favour a blanket 500ft rule. In fact I think they said they don't think it should be a blanket 500ft, but included it as a possible option as it would mean compliance with the ICAO rules.

Hi Whirly

It was mentioned in two threads here

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=72466

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=72384

But didn't generate much comment.

Hopefully it did provoke a few responses to the CAA.

Whirly,

Good point about a 500' AGL rule interfering with mountain flying. I hadn't thought of that, but you're quite right.

The only real mountain flying I've done was in New Zealand a few months ago (not much opportunity for it near Redhill sadly) but the proposed rule here would certainly seem to make it a lot less safe. You'd have to fly up the centre of every valley, which would be a recipe for disaster in a confined space in a fixed wing aircraft if a 180 degree turn was suddenly required.

Come on chaps! 500 ft is any farm strip flyer's circuit height. You have got to pursue any worthwhile PFL down to practically down to the grass, because you will never otherwise know whether you'd have made it for real. All the vital judgements on slipping or not - or turning early to use an alternative parallel field, or s-turning to get into the only one available - take place below this height and really, really count in the real world.

F**k all those desk-bound sods and Nimbys quietly rubbing their hands at the prospect of easy prosecutions with a simplistic 500-foot height rule: real flying is more complicated than that. The existing, sensible, tried and tested 500-foot SEPARATION forming the basis of the existing Rule 5 is all about life and death--for individual pilots and grassroots aviation alike. Long may it live!

Hi Philip

Can we assume from your posting that AOPA will be vigorously opposing any change to the 500' rule?

When will we see it mentioned on the AOPA website?

(Sorry if you don't understand my hint, but in nearly every other post you make you mention AOPA or the AOPA magazine :))

Easy, rustle, easy.

Philip is actually pretty punctilious about not indulging in plugging, in my opinion. And, frankly, if someone has a particular position or role of relevance -- especially if it's one whose aim is to benefit all of us -- and makes that plain in this forum, is that a problem? Much better than hidden agendas, surely?

Philip -- I hope that you spur AOPA onwards and upwards to combat the Rule 5 and Mode S absurdities and that you c\ontinue to make your position plain here. This would be an excellent crusade for your magazine.

QDM

I'm one of the 100 ft and below people, but only subject to a careful examination of the area for 'Vessel, person, object or structure' both on the approach and in the climb out. Obviously this will need prior planning, so I divide my PFLs (as an instructor) into two types: the 'Surprise' one and the 'Planned' one. The latter is used to hone the techniques of height planning, aiming point, drills and maydays etc, and will involve getting to flare height to prove that the system can work. This requires fairly careful choice of field for obvious reasons. The field will offer the best chance of a successful landing, so the concern of 'what happens if the engine doesn't respond' is low, as we will just land. Hopefully the surface will be good enough to permit a subsequent take off. If not, we will have some explaining to do...

I agree with the comments so far that it is the last 500ft which make all the difference (how many times has an approach to the runway which looks good at 500ft turned into a go around by 200 ft?!), and we should, in the interests of life preservation, be able to practise landing in fields successfully in case we need to do it for real one day.

Once we have mastered the basic techniques, then I will throw in some 'surprise' ones during other exercises, and then the go around height will be dependent upon the area, but planned to be 500ft AGL.

A PFL to 500' is useless - I'm always well below that before I realise I've screwed it up! :D

I always go as low as a can - usually well below 100'. I try to avoid fields with houses, people, animals, etc. in them, but sometimes it's not possible. I did once manage to scare a man who was out walkin his dog when I failed to notice him until I was about 50' above him :eek: The dog didnt' seem too phased though! :D

Out of interest, was anyone else taught to do a forced landing with power for their PPL? My instructor taught me to fly a "circuit" at 500' to check the field's suitability, then fly another circuit, descending to 100' on final to check for hidden power cables etc, then climb to 500' for a final circuit to land. This is the technique I was taught to use for a forced landing if I get caught by bad weather, for example. We practiced it several times, always going down to 100' to "inspect the field". There were a few times that things on the ground (like power cables) only became visible well below 500'.

FFF
-----------------

FFF
I think you are describing a Precautionary landing rather than a Practice forced landing.

However it makes sense to check for wires etc before practicing a forced landing and finding its for real.

Interesting thread.

Amazed though that there are so many peeps that are happy to go that low on a PFL.

I would have thought that most folk should be able to judge by 500ft whether or not it is going to be a success. If you have trouble discerning the obstacles/suitability of the field and your height/speed before that you have left yourself only very little time and no option to make any difference to an apparent bad situation.

May be those people that have to go that deep to see if it will work need to work on the earlier phases of the PFL.

I fully appreciate that some field choices can turn out to be a bad one in the last few hundred feet, but those should be the very small minority of cases. And yes sometimes you have to throw a landing away when in the very last stages of the approach and this should really only be the case if a third party throws a few spanners in the wheels.

I have to sympathise with the bloke who got spooked by the chap overflying him at only 50ft. Consider yourself lucky that you did not get done.

All MHO of course.

FD

I don't feel that breaking off at 500 feet is totally useless,as many forced landings are ruined in the very early stages due to indecision and fear.It is important to remember that there are many distinct stages to a pfl and it does us all well to get whatever practice we can,whenever we can.Establishing a good field with a clear circuit can be practiced if there is a fear of breaking rule 5.

At the strip I'm based I fly all circuits at 500 feet or below. Most approaches are glide approaches. Do I always make a perfect approach? No. Do I sometimes have to use the engine? Yes.

Clearly, this shows that I'm a very average pilot, but then most of us are and it is very easy to screw up a glide approach from 500 feet.

Really, I'd say there are two phases to the PFL:

1. Positioning yourself to a good position at 500 feet
2. Getting in to the field from 500 feet

Neglect the second at your peril. The world looks and feels very different below 500 feet on a PFL -- best not to learn just how different in anger.

QDM

QDM, couldn't have put it better myself.

Flyin'Dutch', look at it this way. When I make a normal, powered approach I usually turn final at about 500'. I'm going to make an assumption here - I assume that you make more powered approached than glide approaches? Therefore, you're going to be "better", or more consistent, at powered approaches. So, if I asked you to turn final, set the power, set the attitude, and then leave everything alone until you flare - could you do it? Consistently? If you can, you're better than me, and I suspect probably better than most people on this forum. I'm always making small power and pitch adjustments on final.

If you can't judge a powered approach from 500', which you do at least once just about every time you fly, perfectly, then do you really believe you can judge a power-off approach from the same height perfectly?

Maybe you should try doing what QDM does, and make every approach a power-off approach from at least 500' (if you don't do that already.) Apart from anything else, as we discussed on a different thread last week, it's safer. It'll also give you practice at those last stages of a PFL. And I'd guess that you'd scare yourself by how wrong you get it for the first few attempts.

In fact, come to think of it, I think I'll follow my own advice! Next time I fly, I promise I will do at least 3 power-off approaches to my airfield. More, if I'm not happy with the first 3 (and I expect that will be the case!)

FFF
-------------